LTTE: Use diplomacy, not nuclear weapons in dealing with Iran

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23703

Use diplomacy, not nuclear weapons in dealing with Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-06-16 11:09. Iran

By Michael McCally, executive director - Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington
USA Today letter to editor

USA TODAY correctly points out the dangers of the United States using nuclear weapons against Iran. If American leaders want to show real leadership, they should draw the line against any use of nuclear weapons ("Loose talk about nukes could sink U.S. interests," Editorial, Monday).

It is unfortunate that amid criticisms of Republican chest-thumping, USA TODAY's editorial gave short shrift to the consequences of a U.S. nuclear attack against Iran.

As Physicians for Social Responsibility documented in our March 2007 report, "War is Not the Answer: The Medical and Public Health Consequences of Attacking Iran," a nuclear attack could cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and disrupt social, communication and economic systems in Iran.

For example, consider the devastation resulting from a nuclear attack against the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which is staffed by up to 3,000 workers and is only about 2.5 miles from Esfahan, a city of about 1.5 million. In that scenario, two other nearby villages also would be at risk of radiation contamination. An attack could cause serious long-term public health effects like those plaguing Hiroshima survivors to this day.

If the United States is serious about stemming the spread of nuclear weapons and averting an international catastrophe, it needs to deal directly with Iran on nuclear and security issues.

The United States needs to begin talks without preconditions —especially while there is still substantial hope and time for a diplomatic solution.

[Prophet 451]

1. Perfectly true

But it ignores the obvious fact that BushCo are hellbent on war with Iran and have been for a while. Short of impeachment, literally nothing is going to prevent them.

[tbyg52]

2. This floors me:

"USA TODAY correctly points out the dangers of the United States using nuclear weapons against Iran."

Maybe it's just me, but the tone seems to imply that such a thing is a common topic of discussion; it just happens to be the wrong action in this particular case.

Sort of like the way discussion of the pros, cons, and techniques of torture has become commonplace.

I'm shaking my head, contemplating what we have become.

[babylonsister]

3. Perhaps, like the terror meme we've all come to know and 'love',

they've heard the threats about attacking Iran so much, it's become mundane to the writer. That's not to defend but it could be. I think it'd behoove anyone who writes about a nuclear attack to really think about how serious that is.

[tbyg52]

4. Yep, "they" throw all this crap out there

And catching all of it is like playing whack-a-mole. So some (lots) of it gets incorporated into "just the way things are."

It's hard to fight people who have no regard for the rules, and stack the umpires just in case.